On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 10:44 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 06/10/2019 08:57 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 08:09 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed > > > > > + * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { > > > > > + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) > > > > > > > > don't need an 'if A if B', can do 'if A && B' > > > > > > Which will make it a very lengthy condition check. > > > > Well, is there any problem line-breaking the if condition? > > > > if (A && B && C && > > D && E ) > > > > Also, if it's used only to decide the return value, maybe would be fine > > to do somethink like that: > > > > return (A && B && C && > > D && E ); > > Got it. But as Dave and Matthew had pointed out earlier, the current x86 > implementation has better readability. Hence will probably stick with it. > Sure, I agree with them. It's way more readable.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part